What does the VFR1200X CrossTourer and the ST1300 have in common?

Of course the first thought might be the V-4 configuration and that is true but that is not my point.

In the VFR1200X adventure bike the 1237cc motor has been re-tuned from the specification the sport tourer VFR1200F has. The F has about 150 hp at the rear wheel and while I do not have the torque figures at hand some of the criticism leveled at the VFR centers around how the 170 crankshaft hp bike feels weak under 5000 rpm. I rode one about 50 miles and I did not come away with that impression but rather felt if pulled at least as strongly down low as my ST1300 does and the ST isn't weak down there. Above 6000 rpm it was much stronger and I expected that as the ST1300 has about 110-115 rear wheel hp@7750 rpm and 82-84 ft/lbs of torque@6100 rpm. The torque curve on an ST1300 is very flat and boasts 70 ft/lbs of torque at 3000 with a gradual rise to the peak at 6100 rpm. It is a great road engine with lots of easily accessible poke and a silky delivery.

So what is the commonality? In the 1200X Honda softened the hp and reworked the torque curve to boost the low end so the bike has more grunt in the area where most riders ride. In this month's bike they published the power curves and they are almost identical to each other from off-idle to redline. The resemblance is uncanny. Both have 70 ft/lb at 3000 rpm and a gradual rise from there. The test 1200X peaked on the dyno at 109.7 hp at 7800 and 81.1 ft/lbs at 6600. Compare that to the averages of several published ST1300 dyno tests of 109.2 hp@7750 and 82.9 fl/lbs@6100.

I think the ST1300 engine is so under-stressed it could last nearly forever and the torque curve is perfectly suited for fast touring work that many of us do.

Depending on the year model VFR-F there is different mapping in the lower gears. The early VFRs had a very intrusive dip in the mid range, that feels like a massive flat spot, until you reach 3rd gear where different, less restricted mapping is engaged. I remember discussing this "flat spot" with Dave Searle, MCN editor, when we had the VFR1200 press bike. I thought it was deliberate anti-hooligan mapping and Dave thought it was poor fueling. Turns out I was right!

For the 2012 model Honda changed the mapping to eliminate or reduce this intrusive dip and added traction control

wjbertrand said:

Depending on the year model VFR-F there is different mapping in the lower gears. The early VFRs had a very intrusive dip in the mid range, that feels like a massive flat spot, until you reach 3rd gear where different, less restricted mapping is engaged. I remember discussing this "flat spot" with Dave Searle, MCN editor, when we had the VFR1200 press bike. I thought it was deliberate anti-hooligan mapping and Dave thought it was poor fueling. Turns out I was right!

For the 2012 model Honda changed the mapping to eliminate or reduce this intrusive dip and added traction control

Click to expand...

I am sure the VFR1200F still has 150 odd hp and different power curves compared to the X and the ST though which was the main point.

I have a three ring binder of bike info and I still see the original MCN reviews now and them you did on the ST1300 years ago. I saw them last night when I went looking for dyno figures. I think your knowledge and varied bike experience helps make this site so informative. Thanks Jeff.

Thanks dduelin, I don't have any knowledge or experience with the X, so can't comment on how they may have tuned the motor for that application.

The how is with cam profiles and timing along with smaller diameter inlet tracts and headers. The why is because the ST has such a remarkably flexible motor.

Probably not really why but Bike comments that this delivery makes for "A Really Rapid Road Bike" despite being castrated to 109 hp. We could have told them that.